Troll dlzc trolled:

The phrase was complete, includes a final "." and i said exactly from
*where* i got it. Therefore anyone (including they two) could add
something more in the case i had missed words (I did not).

You did. Tom Roberts asked Uncle Al why he expected a vector product,
when an analog difference is already known. He was asking for
information, much as I have asked from you. Rather than an answer,
Uncle Al simply calls Tom Roberts "ignorant". Note that Uncle Al
misunderstood a question as a statement.

Uncel al was not replying query but the ignorant statements surrounding
it...

You made a post directly aimed at both Tom Roberts and Uncle Al.

And?

Why is this your problem? Are you qualified to answer Tom's question?

And?

Reason which i reproduced Uncle Al quote here was because it very much
define many posting by Tom Roberts.

Instead wasting time replying Tom Roberts postings here and in
sci.physics.research i would just say

"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."

"Your is the response of a troll, and very much in contravention of the
'standards' you claimed you follow".

Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts.

I see. So like a little child, you fling whatever insults you can
muster? Was that part of tehe code you claimed to follow? I don't
recall that there.

Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts.

The list may be huge but now i remember perfectly:

1) Explicit expression for non-geometrical "coordinate forces" [#] in
terms of gravitational potentials for the specific case of time-
orthogonal system of coordinates.

What does this have to do with the thread? What does this have to do
with your insults and bad manners? What does this even have to do with
chirality?

First question did not reply


2) What experiments confirm geometric GR and invalidates
non-geometrical GR? some time ago Roberts tried to convince us that
curved spacetime had been measured...

Did you happen to notice that Tom agreed UA's experiment needed to be
run? We cannot "prove" theories, we can only disprove them. Measuring
curvature is trivial. If "non-geometrical GR" predicts an effect
identical to curvature, then yoru need is still not met. Use your head.

Second question did not reply

3) Write the *full* relativistic N-body equation of motion for bodies
under gravity.

Like you could understand or recognize it should I bother to generate it
for you?

Third question did not reply

4) Equation of motion in field GR and differences with geometric GR. By
commodity works on weak fields.

You have so far answered neither Tom's request, nor mine. Your personal
hearburn is not my problem.

Fourth did not reply

5) Non-relativistic limit of GR geodesic. Or more easy geodesic
equation for linearized GR.

Fiveth did not reply

6) What is the 'speed' of gravity (and why?).

Infinite, IMO. Because that which is attached to each bit of matter as
"contribution to spacetime everywhere" does not know spacetime... it
*is* spacetime.

Nonsense.

In advance, thanks by all clever knowledge we will receive from you.

You are welcome. I try not to embarrass others with what I myuself
cannot understand.

Still waiting some clever knowledge from you.

David A. Smith


--
http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif